As a strict constructionist, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito respected prior Supreme Court decisions and, on three occasions, ruled in a "pro-choice" manner (Christian Science Monitor).
"I don't think these cases tell us anything about whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or not," says James Bopp, general counsel for National Right to Life. "Nor do they tell us whether he supports pro-life as a value.... He wasn't trying to create law. He was just carefully following the existing law."
In fact, even Alito's dissent in Casey, which has given many encouragement that he will stand up for the sanctity of human life, if carefully examined shows the nominee was not ...
“... ideological and did not show any disrespect to governing Supreme Court abortion precedent. On the contrary, Alito's analysis was a careful application of the framework laid out by Justice O'Connor in her many opinions on the subject. It was also relatively mainstream...” - The New Republic via The Volokh Conspiracy
Alito is a strict constructionist and his hands were tied by prior Supreme Court rulings. Eric's related post addresses this, concluding, "Alito understands the limits to a judge's authority. That's exactly the kind of man we desperately need on the Supreme Court."
LifeNews reports more information.
As an addendum, I’ll show my ignorance of modern constitutional law by adding that I do not respect decisions that defy the sanctity of human life. Is there no way for a lower court to decide contrary to a tragic Supreme Court ruling, such as Roe v. Wade, that is obviously in violation to the God given right to life and the U.S. Constitution?